PDA

View Full Version : If You Consider Only Peak, Who Are the Best Players Ever?



Quinnsanity
05-01-2017, 08:41 PM
There's been a lot of talk about peak vs. longevity in the Durant and Wade threads. Let's throw longevity out the window and define peak solely as the best single season a player had. At their absolute best, how would you rank the top however many players ever? I haven't put too much thought into this, but here's my initial list of the top 10:

1. LeBron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Wilt
7. Curry
8. Bird
9. Walton
10. Magic

Yes, I think 2015-16 Curry is better than peak Bird or Magic. Come at me. I also think peak Walton is better than peak Magic. We only have 1.5 seasons of peak Walton, but holy **** was he incredible. Once again, come at me.

flea
05-01-2017, 08:45 PM
1. MJ
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Magic
8. Lebron
9. Kobe
10. Moses

HandsOnTheWheel
05-01-2017, 08:52 PM
Wade's gotta be up there.

GREATNESS ONE
05-01-2017, 09:08 PM
Lolol Shaq is #1 and it's not even close no one on your list or anyone's list can stop or contain Shaq 00-01 peak prime.

mightybosstone
05-01-2017, 09:10 PM
There's been a lot of talk about peak vs. longevity in the Durant and Wade threads. Let's throw longevity out the window and define peak solely as the best single season a player had. At their absolute best, how would you rank the top however many players ever? I haven't put too much thought into this, but here's my initial list of the top 10:

1. LeBron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Wilt
7. Curry
8. Bird
9. Walton
10. Magic

Yes, I think 2015-16 Curry is better than peak Bird or Magic. Come at me. I also think peak Walton is better than peak Magic. We only have 1.5 seasons of peak Walton, but holy **** was he incredible. Once again, come at me.

I love Russell's game historically, but he doesn't sniff any list of greatest peaks in NBA history. Hell, I don't know that he would crack my top 25. Russell's greatness came from defense, postseason prowess and leadership, much of which doesn't show up on a box score.

Heediot
05-01-2017, 09:10 PM
Depends on the rules. The cheezy rules now inflate stats for ball handlers and pg's.

If we are using fiba rules and universal ones. I'm leaning more towards flea's list. Not too sure I'd have bird that high though.

mightybosstone
05-01-2017, 09:14 PM
1. MJ
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Magic
8. Lebron
9. Kobe
10. Moses

I don't know how anybody could have Lebron's peak out of the top 3-4. Pretty much any statistical barometer you use to judge a basketball player suggests he's probably easily top 2.

Heediot
05-01-2017, 09:17 PM
Jordan
LeBron
Shaq
Duncan
Wilt
Hakeem
Kareem
Bird
Magic
Russell

tredigs
05-01-2017, 09:25 PM
I don't know how anybody could have Lebron's peak out of the top 3-4. Pretty much any statistical barometer you use to judge a basketball player suggests he's probably easily top 2.

Oh come on dude. There's DEFINITELY arguments for other guys. Off the top of my head late 80's/early 90's Jordan obviously (the best). Early 70's Kareem. Wilt (debatable seasons). Late 90's/early 00's Shaq. 12/13 'Bron belongs in the discussion by by no means is he "easily top 2" as if it's a given he's better than any of those 4 at their peak.

Quinnsanity
05-01-2017, 09:26 PM
I love Russell's game historically, but he doesn't sniff any list of greatest peaks in NBA history. Hell, I don't know that he would crack my top 25. Russell's greatness came from defense, postseason prowess and leadership, much of which doesn't show up on a box score.

I never said anything about box scores. I mean, at their absolute best, who would you most want on your team relative to their era. Like if longevity didn't matter, and you could just have a whole career's worth of 2000 Shaq, you're taking him over anyone but Jordan and LeBron. If you got Russell at his absolute best, relative to the league he was in at the time, I think the distance between him and an average player is greater than anyone below him.


1. MJ
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Magic
8. Lebron
9. Kobe
10. Moses

One of Duncan's biggest selling points is his longevity. You're telling me you'd rather have, say, 2003 Duncan than 2000 Shaq? Or '86 Bird? Or '13 LeBron? Seriously? If you really think THAT highly of Duncan's peak, I'd assume you'd have to push him over MJ on your overall list because of his far superior longevity.

tredigs
05-01-2017, 09:28 PM
'03 Duncan is definitely another one, that playoff run was maybe the best one man show I've ever seen.

lol, please
05-01-2017, 09:36 PM
There's been a lot of talk about peak vs. longevity in the Durant and Wade threads. Let's throw longevity out the window and define peak solely as the best single season a player had. At their absolute best, how would you rank the top however many players ever? I haven't put too much thought into this, but here's my initial list of the top 10:

1. LeBron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Russell
6. Wilt
7. Curry
8. Bird
9. Walton
10. Magic

Yes, I think 2015-16 Curry is better than peak Bird or Magic. Come at me. I also think peak Walton is better than peak Magic. We only have 1.5 seasons of peak Walton, but holy **** was he incredible. Once again, come at me.

Shaq
Curry
Wade
Bird
Kobe
T-Mac
MJ

/thread

mightybosstone
05-01-2017, 09:37 PM
I never said anything about box scores. I mean, at their absolute best, who would you most want on your team relative to their era. Like if longevity didn't matter, and you could just have a whole career's worth of 2000 Shaq, you're taking him over anyone but Jordan and LeBron. If you got Russell at his absolute best, relative to the league he was in at the time, I think the distance between him and an average player is greater than anyone below him.

Mmm... I think your original post needed more clarity then. Because I don't think there's a basketball fan alive that would take peak Bill Russell over some of the other all-time greats at their peaks regardless of era. By adding the caveat of "within their respective eras" you completely change the framing of the question. Hell, if you're just going by that, why not throw George Mikan into the mix?

That's why I don't like "within their era" arguments. Because that doesn't take into consideration the vast differences in talent between different eras of basketball. It's not really fair.

IKnowHoops
05-01-2017, 09:43 PM
1.Bron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Drob
6. Kareem
7. Curry
8. AD
9. Tmac
10. Wade

This is a pretty on target PEAK list

tredigs
05-01-2017, 09:43 PM
Mmm... I think your original post needed more clarity then. Because I don't think there's a basketball fan alive that would take peak Bill Russell over some of the other all-time greats at their peaks regardless of era. By adding the caveat of "within their respective eras" you completely change the framing of the question. Hell, if you're just going by that, why not throw George Mikan into the mix?

That's why I don't like "within their era" arguments. Because that doesn't take into consideration the vast differences in talent between different eras of basketball. It's not really fair.
Agreed on this, but it also does not take into consideration that the players now learned their game based on the collective knowledge of the players/coaches before them. Also, the guys were talking about (so not Mikan) are capable of dominance across any era, and would only improve after seeing new tricks. Also bears mentioning that some of these guys (like Russell and his block-tips to his teammates for immediate fast breaks... NEVER the case in this NBA) had far superior tricks like so in comparison to modern players in their arsenal. That play specifically if implemented by a guy like Deandre Jordan would immediately turn him into one of the top centers in the NBA instead of on the periphery looking in. In short, not everything is improved in the modern game in relation to what players back then we're doing.

flea
05-01-2017, 09:46 PM
I don't know how anybody could have Lebron's peak out of the top 3-4. Pretty much any statistical barometer you use to judge a basketball player suggests he's probably easily top 2.

Well, any barometer but actually competing and winning at least. It's too bad I factor that in otherwise Charles Barkley would be about as high as Lebron too.


One of Duncan's biggest selling points is his longevity. You're telling me you'd rather have, say, 2003 Duncan than 2000 Shaq? Or '86 Bird? Or '13 LeBron? Seriously? If you really think THAT highly of Duncan's peak, I'd assume you'd have to push him over MJ on your overall list because of his far superior longevity.

He's got as good of an argument over MJ as anyone and he actually proved it - we don't have to guess. Very few players have done anything even comparable to what Duncan did in '03. He had no all stars on his team, and everyone who was ever an allstar on his team was at least 2 years away from their last/next allstar appearance.

IKnowHoops
05-01-2017, 09:46 PM
If Drob isn't on your list then your automatically wrong. He has a year that is all time top 5 in PER and WS48

FlashBolt
05-01-2017, 09:55 PM
Lol. Larry over LeBron. That's funny.

tredigs
05-01-2017, 10:07 PM
If Drob isn't on your list then your automatically wrong. He has a year that is all time top 5 in PER and WS48

To be fair, not everybody follows PER and WS/48 as gospel as much as you do though. He wasn't even All-NBA 1st Team that season dude.

Heediot
05-01-2017, 10:11 PM
Athletically, drob was one of the goats. It was the fact that his teams weren't mentally tough enough to overcome their playoff deficiencies with him being the man, ask rodman and chronz lol.

valade16
05-01-2017, 10:12 PM
For who I'd take at their best for 1 season:

1. MJ
2. LeBron
3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Duncan
7. Wilt
8. Bird
9. Magic
10. Steph
11. Walton

FlashBolt
05-01-2017, 10:13 PM
If Drob isn't on your list then your automatically wrong. He has a year that is all time top 5 in PER and WS48

If you're going by that criteria, where does AD rank? Two seasons ago, he posted a 30.8 and .274. Hardly "best player" status if we're ignoring that.

ewing
05-01-2017, 10:32 PM
Lol. Larry over LeBron. That's funny.

he did win 3 straight MVPs

Quinnsanity
05-01-2017, 11:42 PM
To be fair, not everybody follows PER and WS/48 as gospel as much as you do though. He wasn't even All-NBA 1st Team that season dude.

This is a public service announcement: PER and WS are perfectly fine snapshot stats if you just want to get a general idea of whether or not someone is good. But you should absolutely, under no circumstance be using them as be all and end all stats.

PER is weighted extremely heavily towards volume scorers. Last year, Enes Kanter was 11th in the NBA in PER. Does anybody on Earth believe that Enes Kanter is the 11th best offensive player on Earth? No. But he shot a **** ton in the moments he was on the floor, which boosted his PER. This problem is so widespread that I believe John Hollinger, the creator of the stat and now the Grizzlies' GM/VP of Basketball Ops, has spoken about it publicly. You'd better believe he isn't using it, at least not in its publicly available form, to make decisions for the Grizzlies. Very few analysts take it particularly seriously.

There are myriad problems with Win Shares, and I could get into them in more detail, but there are better people on this forum to ask about that than me (PSK would be best, idk how much he's around anymore though). For now, I'll focus on the problem with Defensive Win Shares. They are calculated using Dean Oliver's individual Defensive Ratings. As a general rule, you should not take individual defensive ratings very seriously. They only account for steals, blocks, and ESTIMATES of the number of one-on-one forced misses and turnovers created that are not accounted for in box score stats. It does not account for help defense, quality of teammates on defense or several other very important factors. A really good example of where this stat goes wrong can be found in this year's top 10. Kawhi Leonard is 7th with 4.7 Defensive Win Shares. Feels about right. Russell Westbrook is 8th with 4.6. That does not. But Westbrook's limited defensive impact is more readily readable in the box score, and he tends to play with teammates that are mainly defenders. Westbrook was a very bad defender this season. He should not be in the top 100 in any defensive stat, let alone the top 10. That's just one problem with Win Shares. There are others, but I'm not remotely well versed enough to get into the minutia and I don't want to insult Dean Oliver, who is basically the godfather of modern basketball analytics, by questioning formulas he published over a decade ago that have never been changed.

You should not be using aggregation stats in general. They are all biased in one way or another. Instead, you should be looking at every statistic that actually measures individual aspects of the game (how well someone shoots, how often they get rebounds etc...) and decide how valuable you consider the sum total of those numbers AND the things that can't be measured. However, if you insist on aggregation numbers, I guess I am partial to Kevin Pelton's VORP formula or Estimated Wins Added. But I would not recommend using them in general. If you went into an argument with stats people, say on the APBR forum, and argued that a player's WS and PER justified their placement on a list, you'd get laughed out of the room.


He's got as good of an argument over MJ as anyone and he actually proved it - we don't have to guess. Very few players have done anything even comparable to what Duncan did in '03. He had no all stars on his team, and everyone who was ever an allstar on his team was at least 2 years away from their last/next allstar appearance.

Right, but look at the competition. They beat the Stephon Marbury Suns, the totally imploding Lakers, the Mavs with an injured Dirk (he only played 3 games in the series) and the team we've universally agreed is one of the worst to ever make the Finals (J-Kidd's Nets). Had they played, say, a healthy Kings team (Webber got hurt in the playoffs), or had the Lakers done a remotely acceptable job of building the fringes of their roster (Slava Medvedenko started 10 games for them!), or had the East been able to produce a somewhat acceptable challenger, it is eminently possible that the Spurs would have lost during those playoffs.

That's not to say they weren't deserving champions. You can only beat who's in front of you. But you have to take the quality of opponents into account if you're going to use one playoff run to justify such a lofty placement. The league was in such a bad place in 2003 that I have to imagine almost anyone from the top 10 or 15 players ever, at their peaks, could have won San Antonio that title.


Agreed on this, but it also does not take into consideration that the players now learned their game based on the collective knowledge of the players/coaches before them. Also, the guys were talking about (so not Mikan) are capable of dominance across any era, and would only improve after seeing new tricks. Also bears mentioning that some of these guys (like Russell and his block-tips to his teammates for immediate fast breaks... NEVER the case in this NBA) had far superior tricks like so in comparison to modern players in their arsenal. That play specifically if implemented by a guy like Deandre Jordan would immediately turn him into one of the top centers in the NBA instead of on the periphery looking in. In short, not everything is improved in the modern game in relation to what players back then we're doing.

This is a really insightful and useful post. I don't really have anything else to add to it.


1.Bron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Drob
6. Kareem
7. Curry
8. AD
9. Tmac
10. Wade

This is a pretty on target PEAK list

For God's sake Anthony Davis' peak hasn't even happened yet. You're already trolling enough with the rest of this list you didn't need that one.


Mmm... I think your original post needed more clarity then. Because I don't think there's a basketball fan alive that would take peak Bill Russell over some of the other all-time greats at their peaks regardless of era. By adding the caveat of "within their respective eras" you completely change the framing of the question. Hell, if you're just going by that, why not throw George Mikan into the mix?

That's why I don't like "within their era" arguments. Because that doesn't take into consideration the vast differences in talent between different eras of basketball. It's not really fair.

I can't in good conscience include George Mikan on any list like this. The league wasn't even called the NBA when he started (it was the BAA for you non-history buffs out there). But anything past that? I think that's fair game. Russell completely owned a decade of legitimate NBA play. He has to be a part of any GOAT list even if he's probably worse at basketball than like Trevor Ariza.

If we don't include the era constraint, frankly the 10 best players of all time would basically be the 10 best players in the league right now. Larry Bird would not be Larry Bird if he played today, just like Russell wouldn't have been Russell if he played in Bird's era. The caliber of players overall improves with each passing era. I think establishing an arbitrary cut off like the merger as many do makes less sense than just acknowledging while different eras had different circumstances, a player can only be judged against the players he played against. I know it's a bit unfair of me to say that considering what I just said about Mikan, but in general that's how I feel.


he did win 3 straight MVPs

To be fair you could argue that LeBron should have won six straight. My personal stance is that he was the rightful winner in '08, '09, '10, '12 and '13 ('11 was rightfully Dwight's award but narrative gave it to Rose), but even in his current state of having two separate back-to-back MVPs is nothing to scoff at.

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 12:02 AM
I love Russell's game historically, but he doesn't sniff any list of greatest peaks in NBA history. Hell, I don't know that he would crack my top 25. Russell's greatness came from defense, postseason prowess and leadership, much of which doesn't show up on a box score.

To be fair with Russell he did put up like 24ppg vs Wilt and did so because he said his team needed him to do that so I am sure if he focused on offense more he could have avg around 25-28ppg with the crazy rebound and blocked shots(that they didn't keep track of but I will add them because its common sense to do so) and his defensive anchorship places him among that list to me, but since he didn't put up the scoring numbers I wouldn't be mad where people place him since its your list and free will

flea
05-02-2017, 12:03 AM
Right, but look at the competition. They beat the Stephon Marbury Suns, the totally imploding Lakers, the Mavs with an injured Dirk (he only played 3 games in the series) and the team we've universally agreed is one of the worst to ever make the Finals (J-Kidd's Nets). Had they played, say, a healthy Kings team (Webber got hurt in the playoffs), or had the Lakers done a remotely acceptable job of building the fringes of their roster (Slava Medvedenko started 10 games for them!), or had the East been able to produce a somewhat acceptable challenger, it is eminently possible that the Spurs would have lost during those playoffs.

The league was a lot better in 2003 than it is now. Kidd's Nets weren't a great team but they were better than a lot of other East representatives - they made back to back Finals for a reason. They played a defensive style, the whole league had a defensive style at that time because they were trying to figure out how to up scoring while still maintaining their guard-friendly rules. And while Dirk got hurt, they only barely won 1 game he played in and got destroyed in 2 others. I don't know what Dirk was going to do in the latter 2 Spurs wins when Duncan slashed 28/16.7/5.8 on 57% with 3 blocks for the series but he certainly wasn't going to slow that train down.

Shaq's Lakers had won 3 straight rings and went to the Finals the following year with ancient Malone. They were far from imploding at that point, and even an imploding Lakers team had the most talent in the league. I don't know what you're on about with the Lakers big man, they still had Horry that year just like the year prior next to Shaq. They were already a lot more talented than the Spurs, Horry would have been the 2nd best player for the Spurs that year. The Shaq apologist talking point you're looking for is "they were tired from all the playoff games." That's another boring one but people who like to denigrate what Duncan did that year always end up trotting it out in the hopes someone will bite.

And finally it's just completely untrue that "any top 15 player" could have won with Duncan's roster. He led his team in boards, points, blocks, minutes, and assists and his #2 scorer didn't even average 15 PPG. He had to be the best player on both teams on both sides of the court every night if the Spurs were to win and he did. If Lebron had done anything close to as impressive as what Duncan did in 2003 we'd never hear the end of it - and from you among the most I'd bet.

GREATNESS ONE
05-02-2017, 12:08 AM
Lolololol it would take 2 of your top 10 to stop, The Diesel. Would it take 2 of your top 10 to stop anyone else? MJ/Lebron are 2/3.

/Thread.

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 12:08 AM
When a player avg damn near 40ppg and 30rpg as a rookie/NBA MVP and a 6-7yr stretch of 40ppg it starts there and you can fill in the rest underneath that player with whoever you like, checkmate

tredigs
05-02-2017, 12:09 AM
To be fair you could argue that LeBron should have won six straight. My personal stance is that he was the rightful winner in '08, '09, '10, '12 and '13 ('11 was rightfully Dwight's award but narrative gave it to Rose), but even in his current state of having two separate back-to-back MVPs is nothing to scoff at.

Just on this last point, surrounding Larry Bird's 3 consecutive MVP's were 4 2nd place finishes and a 3rd place finish that included multiple Defensive Teams and multiple Finals MVP's. He was on top of the world in an era that had prime Moses Malone, Magic, young MJ (who was already averaging 35/6/7 by 1986/87), young Barkley and Olajuwon, etc. That's a truly spectacular peak, though I think LBJ has him slightly beat.

Edit: Agreed at the rest of your post. ABPR would certainly have a field day.

GREATNESS ONE
05-02-2017, 12:10 AM
When a played avg damn near 40ppg and 30rpg as a rookie/NBA MVP and a 6-7yr stretch of 40ppg it starts there and you can fill in the rest underneath that player with whoever you like, checkmate

If you're taking numbers, you're 100% right good sir. If you're talking complete dominance in a competitive league, this question is answered in a different manner.

Peak to me, means, complete dominance over the highly competitive league.

valade16
05-02-2017, 12:18 AM
When a played avg damn near 40ppg and 30rpg as a rookie/NBA MVP and a 6-7yr stretch of 40ppg it starts there and you can fill in the rest underneath that player with whoever you like, checkmate

Wilt's 50 PPG dropped to 33 PPG in the finals vs Russell's Celtics and the next season when he scored 44 PPG the Warriors didn't even make the playoffs.

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 12:26 AM
The fact Nets made the Finals back to back isn't representative of how good they were but the opposite. The league was incredibly watered back down in the East until the Pistons arrived and actually made it competitive. It's the only reason Sixers were able to get to the Finals with Allen Iverson. Here we go with the Wilt nonsense again. Shaq would score 50 points against 6'10 white guys playing in only 8 teams in which blacks were severely under-represented due to racial profiling. I'll take Shaq here for personal preference but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the below:

LeBron
Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
MJ
TD

Too close to call.

More-Than-Most
05-02-2017, 12:37 AM
From the 80s On all answers need to start with Lebron/MJ/Shaq in no order... Id take peak Lebron over Peak MJ because size/ability/Defense if we are going by neutral teams... Id take Shaq over everyone as long as he remained on a diet.

Pfeifer
05-02-2017, 12:41 AM
Peak Steve Nash was pretty incredible. Just saying.

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 12:44 AM
^at soccer or high fiving people?

tredigs
05-02-2017, 12:45 AM
From the 80s On all answers need to start with Lebron/MJ/Shaq in no order... Id take peak Lebron over Peak MJ because size/ability/Defense if we are going by neutral teams... Id take Shaq over everyone as long as he remained on a diet.

When MJ was locked in he was a better man defender than Lebron, albeit not as versatile defensively. I'd rather have MJ's D though. I think LBJ has him on rebounding and passing, but Jordan on scoring and defense (while also being a fantastic passer and a very good rebounder). Without getting into the stats, when they were at their peak MJ was just a more demoralizing force, despite not being as strong and living through bully-ball like LBJ is capable of at times. I'd probably go with Wilt and Shaq 2nd and 3rd to be honest. The only ones who can really neutralize the two at their ultimate peaks would be each other. That size and strength matched with their skill are unmatched by anybody else. Olajuwon in '93 should also be mentioned here just behind those guys. Peak Magic as well.

GREATNESS ONE
05-02-2017, 12:47 AM
The fact Nets made the Finals back to back isn't representative of how good they were but the opposite. The league was incredibly watered back down in the East until the Pistons arrived and actually made it competitive. It's the only reason Sixers were able to get to the Finals with Allen Iverson. Here we go with the Wilt nonsense again. Shaq would score 50 points against 6'10 white guys playing in only 8 teams in which blacks were severely under-represented due to racial profiling. I'll take Shaq here for personal preference but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the below:

LeBron
Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
MJ
TD

Too close to call.

Lolol how old were you 10? Please, the West is more competitive at that time than either the West or East now.

The East the last 10
Years+ other than Those Celtics or Lebron and his hand picked top 10 cronies has been pathetic.

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 12:49 AM
Wilt's 50 PPG dropped to 33 PPG in the finals vs Russell's Celtics and the next season when he scored 44 PPG the Warriors didn't even make the playoffs.

Are we talking about teams or individual player? when you can key on a guy for a playoff series with 4-5 guys I am sure any player stats would dip and going against arguable the best defensive player ever at that, Jordan struggled for most part as what he was accustomed to against that Detroit Jordan rules strategy, I don't have the numbers but it wasn't Jordan elite but what do you expect when they triple team you and bang on you all game?

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 12:49 AM
Lolol how old were you 10? Please, the West is more competitive at that time than either the west or East now.

lol @ you trying to bump Shaq. I never said the West wasn't competitive. How old am I? old enough to know how to read.

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 12:55 AM
The fact Nets made the Finals back to back isn't representative of how good they were but the opposite. The league was incredibly watered back down in the East until the Pistons arrived and actually made it competitive. It's the only reason Sixers were able to get to the Finals with Allen Iverson. Here we go with the Wilt nonsense again. Shaq would score 50 points against 6'10 white guys playing in only 8 teams in which blacks were severely under-represented due to racial profiling. I'll take Shaq here for personal preference but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the below:

LeBron
Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
MJ
TD

Too close to call.

Since its so much nonsense why do HOF legends say Wilt would have avg 70ppg against the 90's stock of Centers, which were black 7 footers galore? here we go again with your excuse making for that coming up on deck, Frazier said he would get 70-75ppg, he could have avg. 70ppg back then as well if he was just all about scoring, but he was a team player and did what the coach/owner asked him to do

Wilt didn't use his brute strength and knock people around like Shaq he was skilled and finesse big man who had the superman strength at his disposal, 6'10' is Howard height with shoes on in todays league so I guess the height factor really hasn't changed, Gorbert and D Jordan should be wrecking shop since they are tall, you talk like you are 18 yrs old I sware, Manute Bol/Muresean should have put up 50ppg, Shaq should have in his day since outside of a few legit Centers he went up against Divac/Brad Miller/Koncak/Smits/Declerq/McIlvaine/Mihm/Dudley and many other lames/ white boys , and others like Dampier/undersized small B Wallace(legit but a midget compared to Shaq)/D Garrett/J Foster/K Brown and others, you probably don't have a clue who 3/4ths of those players are, too bad for you

Robinson/Dream were in the West in Shaq early career so he faced them twice a year, Mourning/Ewing were in same conference and faced them 3-4 times per year then by the time he went out West The Dream/DRob were basically on last leg or close to it, big deal and by the time Howard/Ming came in the league Shaq was on his way out, so Shaq should have avg 45-50ppg vs. those other pathetic Centers he faced for the other 68 games for a 4-8yr stretch but he didnt

One myth that people believe is that Wilt Chamberlain was playing against people who were not near the size of Wilt himself. Wilt Chamberlain was 7’1 and during his career he played against twenty-five different players who were at the height or over the height of 6’10 with seven of those players being 7’0 or taller (Smith). Another myth people often believe is “Bill Russell shut down Wilt Chamberlain” but this could not be further from the truth. According to Philadelphia 76ers stat man Harvey Pollack, Chamberlain and Russell played head-to-head a total of 142 times. In those matchups, Wilt averaged 28.7 PPG and 28.7 RPG. Russell, on the other hand, averaged 23.7 PPG, and 14.5 RPG. Also in one game Wilt Chamberlain scored 62 points against his “Weakness” Bill Russell and he scored more than 50 points against him in six other games

Was the NBA assists leader in 1967-68 season (As a center)

Won MVP as a rookie

Only fouled out of one game in his NBA career

Was 7’1 and weighed 300-310 pounds but ran a 4.4 second 40 yard dash (Fastest 40 yard dash in NFL history was recorded by RB Chris Johnson at 4.24 seconds)

Unofficially recorded 26 blocks against the Detroit Pistons in one game

News archives, and game films revealed Chamberlain averaged 8.8 BPG in 112 of his 1305 career games

GREATNESS ONE
05-02-2017, 12:56 AM
lol @ you trying to bump Shaq. I never said the West wasn't competitive. How old am I? old enough to know how to read.
:laugh2: dead! :p


i don't think it's close at all! I'm just imagining all those top 10 players walking into their best possible chance at winning it all next year at their absolute peak.

Shaq, was unstoppable.not even close.

Mr_Jones
05-02-2017, 12:56 AM
1.Bron
2. MJ
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Drob
6. Kareem
7. Curry
8. AD
9. Tmac
10. Wade

This is a pretty on target PEAK list

Your posts are always cancer.

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 12:59 AM
Since its so much nonsense why do HOF legends say Wilt would have avg 70ppg against the 90's stock of Centers, which were black 7 footers galore? here we go again with your excuse making for that coming up on deck, Frazier said he would get 70-75ppg, he could have avg. 70ppg back then as well if he was just all about scoring, but he was a team player and did what the coach/owner asked him to do

Wilt didn't use his brute strength and knock people around like Shaq he was skilled and finesse big man who had the superman strength at his disposal, 6'10' is Howard height with shoes on in todays league so I guess the height factor really hasn't changed, Gorbert and D Jordan should be wrecking shop since they are tall, you talk like you are 18 yrs old I sware, Manute Bol/Muresean should have put up 50ppg, Shaq should have in his day since outside of a few legit Centers he went up against Divac/Brad Miller and other lames, white boys and all

Most HOF legends have Jordan as the GOAT. that's #1. #2, players of their respective era always side with their own because it makes THEMSELVES look better as well. "I went up against the best basketball player ever" vs "I went up against the best player in our era in which there were only 8 teams and it was hard to come by truly great players." You are too gullible. I just remembered I promised to ignore you. Mission starts now. Goodbye

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 01:00 AM
:laugh2: dead! :p


i don't think it's close at all! I'm just imagining all those top 10 players walking into their best possible chance at winning it all next year at their absolute peak.

Shaq, was unstoppable.not even close.

i already said I would take Shaq. Not even close is stupid considering they almost lost to the Kings through a fixed game... so what are you talking about "not close"?

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 01:02 AM
If you're taking numbers, you're 100% right good sir. If you're talking complete dominance in a competitive league, this question is answered in a different manner.

Peak to me, means, complete dominance over the highly competitive league.

the league was competitive as according to that time/era, you could nitpick for all eras based on that way of thinking, even if you think the 80's or 90's was more competitive and more teams it was still ran by no more than a handful of teams truly competing, just like how the Lakers and Spurs won majority of the 99-2013 titles, 2 teams out of 30, that is weak as it gets

When a player avg almost 40 and 30 rookie year and by year three 50ppg that is complete dominance and he just reduced all the highly competitive guys back then to peons for the most part, Bellamy and others were getting 30ppg but he was getting 44-50ppg, complete utter dominance

tredigs
05-02-2017, 01:06 AM
Let's look at MJ's peak - we'll say 1986-1993 with essentially no games missed for 7 straight years. In that time he averaged 33/6/6 on a 59% TS + 2.8 steals and 1 block (2.9 TO). Lead the league in scoring all 7 seasons, lead the league in steals in 3 of them. Advanced slash of 30.4 PER, .285 WS/48. Lead the league in PER, WinShares and VORP in every one of those seasons. 3 MVP awards, a DPOY and 3 Finals MVP's in that span. His playoff #'s on those runs were 35/7/7 in the playoffs and 36/7/8 on 50/37/83 in the b2b2b Finals (all MVP's of course).

And that's not including 3 MVP's, 3 Titles and 3 Finals MVP's after his retirement. Think about that. Just a sick, sick peak to not include those 3 seasons in your best individual. It's essentially like not even considering peak Bird level of play as part of his peak.

That's the GOAT peak player right there.

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 01:10 AM
Most HOF legends have Jordan as the GOAT. that's #1. #2, players of their respective era always side with their own because it makes THEMSELVES look better as well. "I went up against the best basketball player ever" vs "I went up against the best player in our era in which there were only 8 teams and it was hard to come by truly great players." You are too gullible. I just remembered I promised to ignore you. Mission starts now. Goodbye

You should ignore me since you got stumped just like the other posts where you were claiming non sense, you take this debate ish too serious so I know you are a teenager on the brink of 20yrs of age so take your ball and run home in the corner into a fetus position, you are in timeout, goodbye

A lot of HOF'ers have said Wilt is the GOAT/Most dominant ever, its not a landslide for Jordan, especially those who played in the 80's and earlier, the new school HOF'ers may say Jordan but its closer than you think and when I find the article I will show you, well that should answer your question then right there that it is biased because its more players/teams today so Jordan would have more people who saw him play right? doesn't mean he is the best most dominant solo act ever, just those who saw him or those who went up against him, same with Wilt/Jabbar and others who others feel they are the best most dominant

who cares if it was 8 teams or 30 teams, the more teams doesn't make it more necessarily competitive, just like having more artists on your label doesn't make you a better label, its how you water things down with more, like todays era

europagnpilgrim
05-02-2017, 01:27 AM
Most HOF legends have Jordan as the GOAT. that's #1. #2, players of their respective era always side with their own because it makes THEMSELVES look better as well. "I went up against the best basketball player ever" vs "I went up against the best player in our era in which there were only 8 teams and it was hard to come by truly great players." You are too gullible. I just remembered I promised to ignore you. Mission starts now. Goodbye


Bird – Probably Jordan.

In 1985, Bird called the rookie Jordan the best ever. When MJ retired in 1998, he said: “Is he the greatest? He’s in the top two.” Recently he said that“and obviously everyone thinks that [Michael] Jordan was the best player ever”.

Magic Johnson – Jordan

According to Magic, Jordan is the greatest player and Bill Russell, the greatest winner in NBA history.


Bill Russell – Jordan.

“I cannot imagine anyone playing any better.”

Oscar Robertson – Did not pick one. He thinks several players are in the conversation. Does not think Jordan was the greatest.

Oscar Robertson does not think Jordan was the greatest:

“Everybody looks at what you’ve done. Sure he won six championships, Russell won eleven. There are other players on these teams when they play. They don’t play by themselves. Michael Jordan is a great player. Was he the greatest? Ask Kobe that. Ask Bill Russell. Ask Oscar Robertson. Ask Wilt Chamberlain. Ask Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, ask those guys.”

“The media now has anointed Michael Jordan the greatest of all time. Is he greatest of all time? No, I don’t think he is. I think he is a great player. There have been other great players as well, great players before I played.”


Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – He does not say one player in particular, but he thinks Oscar Robertson was superior to both Jordan and Lebron, and he has Wilt Chamberlain as undoubtedly the greatest scorer ever.

Isiah Thomas – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Thomas has changed his mind. He used to consider Jordan the best ever. Today, he has Kareem Abdul Jabbar at the top spot:

“If they say the numbers don’t lie, then Kareem is the greatest ever to play the game,” Thomas said. “And I’m a big proponent of that. … No disrespect to Jordan, but he won in the ’90s. And if the ’80s are the golden era, then the person who dominated the NBA in the ’80s and the ’70s was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.”

Karl Malone – Wilt Chamberlain.

“I’d have to say Wilt Chamberlain was my all-time greatest ever player.”



John Stockton: Can’t pick just one.

Thinks that are a lot of players that fits in the conversation for best ever like Jordan, Chamberlain, Bird, Magic and Elgin Baylor.


Charles Barkley – Jordan

Barkley argues that Jordan was the greatest, since he was the best offensively and also the best defensive player of his era.


Julius Erving, Dr. J – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

” For him to that (being the best ever). for me, he (Lebron) has to surpass Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He is the best to ever play the game.”


Shaquille O’Neal – Jordan

“Michael’s definitely the best basketball player of all time. He’s the greatest offensive weapon to ever play, and probably the best defensive player we’ve ever seen.”


Bill Walton – Kareem Abdul Jabbar

“Without question, no hesitation, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the best player I ever played against. Not just the best center, he was the best player, period. He was better than Magic (Johnson), better than Larry, better than Michael (Jordan). He was my source of motivation. Everything I did was to try to beat this guy. I lived to play against him, and I played my best ball against him. No matter what I threw at him, though, it seemed like he’d score 50 against me. His left leg belongs in the Smithsonian. And it wasn’t just offense. He was a great defender and rebounder, a great passer, a wonderful leader. He was phenomenal.”


Bob Pettit – Bill Russell

“I think he’s the greatest player who ever walked on the court. There are a lot of guys you could say that about, but in my mind, I would start my team with Bill. In his prime, he was the best I’ve ever seen. He had a great desire to win and to destroy you. And his defense and his rebounding – his defense was incredible. They say [with 11 championship rings] he’s the great winner of all time. Why don’t they just say he’s the greatest player of all time? That’s what the game is about.”


George Gervin – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

In a recent interview of Bill Simmons, Gervin claimed Kareem is the greatest ever. Sadly, I could not find the video.

Ricky Barry – Wilt Chamberlain.

He thinks it is impossible to compare players of different positions, but thinks you have to start a team with the big men, that’s why he would choose Wilt.

About Wilt:

“He’s the greatest big man in the history of the game, and you win with big men,” - R Barry

AIRMAR72
05-02-2017, 07:21 AM
1. MJ
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Magic
8. Lebron
9. Kobe
10. Moses

You stop Kobe Bryant don't belong on the list James Harden is superior bucket getter compare to that overrated punk Kobe

WaDe03
05-02-2017, 09:56 AM
Wade

/thread

WaDe03
05-02-2017, 09:57 AM
You stop Kobe Bryant don't belong on the list James Harden is superior bucket getter compare to that overrated punk Kobe

Jalen Rose has 81 reasons why this isn't true.

Hawkeye15
05-02-2017, 10:52 AM
Well, any barometer but actually competing and winning at least. It's too bad I factor that in otherwise Charles Barkley would be about as high as Lebron too.



He's got as good of an argument over MJ as anyone and he actually proved it - we don't have to guess. Very few players have done anything even comparable to what Duncan did in '03. He had no all stars on his team, and everyone who was ever an allstar on his team was at least 2 years away from their last/next allstar appearance.

explain. LeBron has won plenty. I would assume with your line of thinking, you have Russell very high, and Wilt, much lower than most?

Hawkeye15
05-02-2017, 10:52 AM
Let's look at MJ's peak - we'll say 1986-1993 with essentially no games missed for 7 straight years. In that time he averaged 33/6/6 on a 59% TS + 2.8 steals and 1 block (2.9 TO). Lead the league in scoring all 7 seasons, lead the league in steals in 3 of them. Advanced slash of 30.4 PER, .285 WS/48. Lead the league in PER, WinShares and VORP in every one of those seasons. 3 MVP awards, a DPOY and 3 Finals MVP's in that span. His playoff #'s on those runs were 35/7/7 in the playoffs and 36/7/8 on 50/37/83 in the b2b2b Finals (all MVP's of course).

And that's not including 3 MVP's, 3 Titles and 3 Finals MVP's after his retirement. Think about that. Just a sick, sick peak to not include those 3 seasons in your best individual. It's essentially like not even considering peak Bird level of play as part of his peak.

That's the GOAT peak player right there.

yes it is. Pretty easily actually.

effen5
05-02-2017, 11:13 AM
The fact Nets made the Finals back to back isn't representative of how good they were but the opposite. The league was incredibly watered back down in the East until the Pistons arrived and actually made it competitive. It's the only reason Sixers were able to get to the Finals with Allen Iverson. Here we go with the Wilt nonsense again. Shaq would score 50 points against 6'10 white guys playing in only 8 teams in which blacks were severely under-represented due to racial profiling. I'll take Shaq here for personal preference but I don't think you can go wrong with any of the below:

LeBron
Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
MJ
TD

Too close to call.

The east was far from being watered down....

effen5
05-02-2017, 11:16 AM
Let's look at MJ's peak - we'll say 1986-1993 with essentially no games missed for 7 straight years. In that time he averaged 33/6/6 on a 59% TS + 2.8 steals and 1 block (2.9 TO). Lead the league in scoring all 7 seasons, lead the league in steals in 3 of them. Advanced slash of 30.4 PER, .285 WS/48. Lead the league in PER, WinShares and VORP in every one of those seasons. 3 MVP awards, a DPOY and 3 Finals MVP's in that span. His playoff #'s on those runs were 35/7/7 in the playoffs and 36/7/8 on 50/37/83 in the b2b2b Finals (all MVP's of course).

And that's not including 3 MVP's, 3 Titles and 3 Finals MVP's after his retirement. Think about that. Just a sick, sick peak to not include those 3 seasons in your best individual. It's essentially like not even considering peak Bird level of play as part of his peak.

That's the GOAT peak player right there.

This.

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 12:17 PM
The east was far from being watered down....

You're right. The Bucks and Raptors were too good.. Gimme a break.

Bostonjorge
05-02-2017, 04:07 PM
Shaq
Jordan/Kobe
KAJ
Magic/James

WaDe03
05-02-2017, 04:40 PM
Shaq
Jordan/Kobe
KAJ
Magic/James

Stop lol

Hawkeye15
05-02-2017, 04:44 PM
Shaq
Jordan/Kobe
KAJ
Magic/James

If we are talking peak, one of those doesn't fit at all...

ManRam
05-02-2017, 04:52 PM
Shaq
Curry
Wade
Bird
Kobe
T-Mac
MJ

/thread

Yup. That's it. Shut it down, folks!

Vee-Rex
05-02-2017, 04:53 PM
Brian "The White Mamba" Scalabrine is the GOAT. Without question.

Per 36 Career 8/5/2 on 39%FG 34%3pt

Career 7.7PER .485TS%. His final season in the NBA was his best for PER, and he did it in only 4 minutes per game of play.

Truly a global icon and legendary superstar that had the love of all the fans in the world.

FlashBolt
05-02-2017, 05:02 PM
t-mac at his peak wasn't even as good as KD but he's above LeBron.. oh okay...

ManRam
05-02-2017, 05:06 PM
Let's look at MJ's peak - we'll say 1986-1993 with essentially no games missed for 7 straight years. In that time he averaged 33/6/6 on a 59% TS + 2.8 steals and 1 block (2.9 TO). Lead the league in scoring all 7 seasons, lead the league in steals in 3 of them. Advanced slash of 30.4 PER, .285 WS/48. Lead the league in PER, WinShares and VORP in every one of those seasons. 3 MVP awards, a DPOY and 3 Finals MVP's in that span. His playoff #'s on those runs were 35/7/7 in the playoffs and 36/7/8 on 50/37/83 in the b2b2b Finals (all MVP's of course).

And that's not including 3 MVP's, 3 Titles and 3 Finals MVP's after his retirement. Think about that. Just a sick, sick peak to not include those 3 seasons in your best individual. It's essentially like not even considering peak Bird level of play as part of his peak.

That's the GOAT peak player right there.

It's frankly absurd that anyone is suggesting otherwise. Especially in favor of Shaq. Shaq had some amazingly dominant years in his prime, but not like Jordan. I'd encourage those people to go back and compare Shaq's prime years (I'd say 97-98 to 02-03, but that's a bit subjective...no disrespect to his middle two years in Orlando) to Jordan's. It shouldn't take long to see the error in your ways!

If your list doesn't start like this, it's wrong:

1. Jordan
2.

Quinnsanity
05-02-2017, 09:44 PM
In general I don't like the "MJ is automatic" answer. I'm very much in the LeBron camp, and if you're not that's fine, I don't think it's an easy answer either way. But I think to dismiss a player who may have been the league's best scorer, passer and defender all at the same time is wise. They're so different that it's hard to really compare them, but if I'm building a basketball team I want the guy who does more things. I understand why others feel otherwise and won't object too strenuously to it. Just think it's not as open and shut as a few of you have made it out to be.


When MJ was locked in he was a better man defender than Lebron, albeit not as versatile defensively. I'd rather have MJ's D though. I think LBJ has him on rebounding and passing, but Jordan on scoring and defense (while also being a fantastic passer and a very good rebounder). Without getting into the stats, when they were at their peak MJ was just a more demoralizing force, despite not being as strong and living through bully-ball like LBJ is capable of at times. I'd probably go with Wilt and Shaq 2nd and 3rd to be honest. The only ones who can really neutralize the two at their ultimate peaks would be each other. That size and strength matched with their skill are unmatched by anybody else. Olajuwon in '93 should also be mentioned here just behind those guys. Peak Magic as well.

It's a different strokes for different folks sort of thing. MJ probably was slightly better in man-to-man, but LeBron was a better team defender and covered more ground. Depends on the rest of your roster TBH.

This is just a personal crusade of mine, but I don't think MJ deserved a DPOY. Not because I think he was overrated, but that was a near peak Hakeem year (certainly peak athleticism) and that was at a point in league history where centers were just way more important on D than perimeter guys could be. I make the same argument about Wallace and Duncan losing to Artest in '04. I think if there's an all-time defensive center near his peak any time before AT LEAST the hand check rules changed in '05 but more realistically closer to 2010, they should win automatically. I may be somewhat steamed that Duncan never won one, which is insane in itself, but I just have a hard time giving any perimeter player, even one as good as MJ, a DPOY when a near-peak Olajuwon existed.


Just on this last point, surrounding Larry Bird's 3 consecutive MVP's were 4 2nd place finishes and a 3rd place finish that included multiple Defensive Teams and multiple Finals MVP's. He was on top of the world in an era that had prime Moses Malone, Magic, young MJ (who was already averaging 35/6/7 by 1986/87), young Barkley and Olajuwon, etc. That's a truly spectacular peak, though I think LBJ has him slightly beat.

Edit: Agreed at the rest of your post. ABPR would certainly have a field day.

Yea, I think it's the defense that pushes Bron over the top. Larry made those three All Defensive teams but a lot of that was based on the state of the league. All Star caliber guys tended to dominate All Defensive teams more so back then because the voters only saw their local teams and other than the clear best guys there weren't as many incredible national writers saying things like "hey, this Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is really good on D!" There was a four-year run where all five All Defensive 1st team members (with one tie in there) were All Stars. I'm sorry but that's kind of ludicrous. There is no way that five All Stars are ALL better at defense than every other specialist nobody cared about. This isn't to say Larry was bad on defense. But he wasn't great either. LeBron was a destroyer of worlds on D at his peak.

I also wonder how Larry's game would've translated to this era. On the one hand, had he been taking seven or eight three's per game... holy ****. But his less than ideal athleticism would've been exposed. That's another important factor here. Larry often hid on lesser offensive players to preserve energy for offense. That was fine in the early 80's when he was making All Defensive teams because the league still had some holdovers from a worse era. By the late 80's though the league was thriving and the talent boom made that much harder. Watch some later 80's Bird defense, especially once the back issues really flare up, and it gets ugly.

But overall? Yea, the two are close. Pretty even on offense, but LeBron's D pushes him over the top.


The league was a lot better in 2003 than it is now. Kidd's Nets weren't a great team but they were better than a lot of other East representatives - they made back to back Finals for a reason. They played a defensive style, the whole league had a defensive style at that time because they were trying to figure out how to up scoring while still maintaining their guard-friendly rules. And while Dirk got hurt, they only barely won 1 game he played in and got destroyed in 2 others. I don't know what Dirk was going to do in the latter 2 Spurs wins when Duncan slashed 28/16.7/5.8 on 57% with 3 blocks for the series but he certainly wasn't going to slow that train down.

Shaq's Lakers had won 3 straight rings and went to the Finals the following year with ancient Malone. They were far from imploding at that point, and even an imploding Lakers team had the most talent in the league. I don't know what you're on about with the Lakers big man, they still had Horry that year just like the year prior next to Shaq. They were already a lot more talented than the Spurs, Horry would have been the 2nd best player for the Spurs that year. The Shaq apologist talking point you're looking for is "they were tired from all the playoff games." That's another boring one but people who like to denigrate what Duncan did that year always end up trotting it out in the hopes someone will bite.

And finally it's just completely untrue that "any top 15 player" could have won with Duncan's roster. He led his team in boards, points, blocks, minutes, and assists and his #2 scorer didn't even average 15 PPG. He had to be the best player on both teams on both sides of the court every night if the Spurs were to win and he did. If Lebron had done anything close to as impressive as what Duncan did in 2003 we'd never hear the end of it - and from you among the most I'd bet.

Kidd made it back for a reason? Yea, the reason was the rest of the East sucked. The Nets won 101 games in those two years. They were the No. 1 seed with 52 wins and the No. 2 seed with 49 (behind the No. 1 seeded Pistons with 50). Screw comparing the Nets to teams in other seasons, just look to the other conference. The Lakers had the same record as the No. 1 seeded Pistons but they were in the West so they were the No. 5 seed. The Pistons had the same SRS as the No. 6 seed Blazers. Stop it. The East was MISERABLE those Nets years.

And umm... LeBron beat the 73-win Warriors. That's far more impressive than what '03 Duncan did. The Warriors won 140 games in '15 and '16, by the way.

This isn't about denigrating Duncan. I'm about as high on him as anyone rational would be. Best player of his era (if you consider LeBron to be the next era, which is another discussion), certainly deserves to be higher on all time lists than Kobe and Shaq imo and is somewhere in the back half of the top 10. But I'm sorry, as impressive as it is that he won a title with that supporting cast in general, it's not some awe-inspiring feat when you consider the competition.


Your posts are always cancer.

:hi5:

Jeffy25
05-02-2017, 10:00 PM
To be fair, not everybody follows PER and WS/48 as gospel as much as you do though. He wasn't even All-NBA 1st Team that season dude.

And to be fair, that's not an argument against WS/48 and PER

effen5
05-02-2017, 10:06 PM
You're right. The Bucks and Raptors were too good.. Gimme a break.

03 bucks > 17 bulls

Jamiecballer
05-02-2017, 11:22 PM
the league was competitive as according to that time/era, you could nitpick for all eras based on that way of thinking, even if you think the 80's or 90's was more competitive and more teams it was still ran by no more than a handful of teams truly competing, just like how the Lakers and Spurs won majority of the 99-2013 titles, 2 teams out of 30, that is weak as it gets

When a player avg almost 40 and 30 rookie year and by year three 50ppg that is complete dominance and he just reduced all the highly competitive guys back then to peons for the most part, Bellamy and others were getting 30ppg but he was getting 44-50ppg, complete utter dominance
Being the best snowshoe-er is not as impressive as the best runner. Why? Because everybody runs. Wilt may well have dominated that much smaller talent pool but it was still exactly that.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Quinnsanity
05-03-2017, 01:32 AM
And to be fair, that's not an argument against WS/48 and PER

If you actually do want the argument against WS and PER I made a smaller version of it earlier in the thread. If you want the more complex explanation I'd recommend asking on APBR, but I gave a basic version of it.

IKnowHoops
05-03-2017, 02:48 AM
For God's sake Anthony Davis' peak hasn't even happened yet. You're already trolling enough with the rest of this list you didn't need that one.



You again. Off as usual. Dude I am beginning to think you are Jay Cutler with your inability to grasp concepts fully.
What does AD, not hitting his peak yet, have to do with his peak year so far being better than most every other peak year by any other player.

This list is statistically backed. Doesn't mean its right or wrong, but these guys all have stats that are arguably top 10 ever. Magic and Bird have no such years. Matter of fact, most people voting for them, never saw them play live, lol, just highlights for these voters and a lack of statistical backing, but hey, yeah, I'm trolling and my stats check out. Nice.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 09:16 AM
You again. Off as usual. Dude I am beginning to think you are Jay Cutler with your inability to grasp concepts fully.
What does AD, not hitting his peak yet, have to do with his peak year so far being better than most every other peak year by any other player.

This list is statistically backed. Doesn't mean its right or wrong, but these guys all have stats that are arguably top 10 ever. Magic and Bird have no such years. Matter of fact, most people voting for them, never saw them play live, lol, just highlights for these voters and a lack of statistical backing, but hey, yeah, I'm trolling and my stats check out. Nice.

I personally think you overrate D-Rob, just want to get that out there.

But yeah, the mystique of Bird/Magic, and the history, make people end up overrating them just a bit. I mean, we are seriously still having a conversation about whether LeBron has passed Bird at this point in another thread. Like, really? And Magic, if people want to talk about easy rides to the finals, check out his west competition over the years. You are right, where their stats don't kick out many of the top peaks we have seen among players. Magic's offensive rating was insane, his peak was indeed legendary, but there are better. Same goes with Bird.

Top 11-12 players ever? Yep, sure. Top 5? Hell to the no.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 09:19 AM
In general I don't like the "MJ is automatic" answer. I'm very much in the LeBron camp, and if you're not that's fine, I don't think it's an easy answer either way. But I think to dismiss a player who may have been the league's best scorer, passer and defender all at the same time is wise. They're so different that it's hard to really compare them, but if I'm building a basketball team I want the guy who does more things. I understand why others feel otherwise and won't object too strenuously to it. Just think it's not as open and shut as a few of you have made it out to be.



It's a different strokes for different folks sort of thing. MJ probably was slightly better in man-to-man, but LeBron was a better team defender and covered more ground. Depends on the rest of your roster TBH.

This is just a personal crusade of mine, but I don't think MJ deserved a DPOY. Not because I think he was overrated, but that was a near peak Hakeem year (certainly peak athleticism) and that was at a point in league history where centers were just way more important on D than perimeter guys could be. I make the same argument about Wallace and Duncan losing to Artest in '04. I think if there's an all-time defensive center near his peak any time before AT LEAST the hand check rules changed in '05 but more realistically closer to 2010, they should win automatically. I may be somewhat steamed that Duncan never won one, which is insane in itself, but I just have a hard time giving any perimeter player, even one as good as MJ, a DPOY when a near-peak Olajuwon existed.



Yea, I think it's the defense that pushes Bron over the top. Larry made those three All Defensive teams but a lot of that was based on the state of the league. All Star caliber guys tended to dominate All Defensive teams more so back then because the voters only saw their local teams and other than the clear best guys there weren't as many incredible national writers saying things like "hey, this Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is really good on D!" There was a four-year run where all five All Defensive 1st team members (with one tie in there) were All Stars. I'm sorry but that's kind of ludicrous. There is no way that five All Stars are ALL better at defense than every other specialist nobody cared about. This isn't to say Larry was bad on defense. But he wasn't great either. LeBron was a destroyer of worlds on D at his peak.

I also wonder how Larry's game would've translated to this era. On the one hand, had he been taking seven or eight three's per game... holy ****. But his less than ideal athleticism would've been exposed. That's another important factor here. Larry often hid on lesser offensive players to preserve energy for offense. That was fine in the early 80's when he was making All Defensive teams because the league still had some holdovers from a worse era. By the late 80's though the league was thriving and the talent boom made that much harder. Watch some later 80's Bird defense, especially once the back issues really flare up, and it gets ugly.

But overall? Yea, the two are close. Pretty even on offense, but LeBron's D pushes him over the top.



Kidd made it back for a reason? Yea, the reason was the rest of the East sucked. The Nets won 101 games in those two years. They were the No. 1 seed with 52 wins and the No. 2 seed with 49 (behind the No. 1 seeded Pistons with 50). Screw comparing the Nets to teams in other seasons, just look to the other conference. The Lakers had the same record as the No. 1 seeded Pistons but they were in the West so they were the No. 5 seed. The Pistons had the same SRS as the No. 6 seed Blazers. Stop it. The East was MISERABLE those Nets years.

And umm... LeBron beat the 73-win Warriors. That's far more impressive than what '03 Duncan did. The Warriors won 140 games in '15 and '16, by the way.

This isn't about denigrating Duncan. I'm about as high on him as anyone rational would be. Best player of his era (if you consider LeBron to be the next era, which is another discussion), certainly deserves to be higher on all time lists than Kobe and Shaq imo and is somewhere in the back half of the top 10. But I'm sorry, as impressive as it is that he won a title with that supporting cast in general, it's not some awe-inspiring feat when you consider the competition.



:hi5:

thing is, I haven't read a single argument on why I shouldn't pick Jordan as the GOAT. None of the arguments against it hold water.

In sports, impact, and contributions to winning are all that matter. Jordan had more impact than any other player in history, we saw it with our eyes, and we can quantify it easily.

The 2011 Mavs series also put such a dent in LeBron's attempt to catch Jordan for me. It just isn't going to happen in all likelihood, unless LeBron does a lot of winning as the man over the next few years. But we never saw Michael fail when he had a capable roster around him. Never.

KnicksorBust
05-03-2017, 11:57 AM
MJ
Shaq
LeBron
Wilt
Kareem
Magic
Duncan
Curry
Bird
Hakeem

Bartlee23
05-03-2017, 11:58 AM
It's frankly absurd that anyone is suggesting otherwise. Especially in favor of Shaq. Shaq had some amazingly dominant years in his prime, but not like Jordan. I'd encourage those people to go back and compare Shaq's prime years (I'd say 97-98 to 02-03, but that's a bit subjective...no disrespect to his middle two years in Orlando) to Jordan's. It shouldn't take long to see the error in your ways!

If your list doesn't start like this, it's wrong:

1. Jordan
2.

This is pretty much spot on..... Jordan is second on no list with the exception of LeBron trolls and any other person who's team was beat to death by the dominance of Jordan so they can't except the truth.

As far as the Bird comments go.... I was the one who on another post who said I would take Bird ahead of LeBron if I was starting a team and I still stand by that. It was an opinion. I never stated Bird was better,just a matter of personal choice. The person just chose to read what they wanted to and had to be right as well as get the last response in.

The funny thing I read was in another post if accurate, the person admitted being 30 in early 2000's meaning he never saw Bird play live in college or the NBA thus discrediting anything they posted as they were not even close to being old enough to understand what's going on... another google/youtube troll.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 12:18 PM
This is pretty much spot on..... Jordan is second on no list with the exception of LeBron trolls and any other person who's team was beat to death by the dominance of Jordan so they can't except the truth.

As far as the Bird comments go.... I was the one who on another post who said I would take Bird ahead of LeBron if I was starting a team and I still stand by that. It was an opinion. I never stated Bird was better,just a matter of personal choice. The person just chose to read what they wanted to and had to be right as well as get the last response in.

The funny thing I read was in another post if accurate, the person admitted being 30 in early 2000's meaning he never saw Bird play live in college or the NBA thus discrediting anything they posted as they were not even close to being old enough to understand what's going on... another google/youtube troll.

Just because you didn't watch a person play live doesn't discredit anything. There is PLENY of game footage of Bird. And college? Who cares who he dominated as a Sycamore.

I can see an argument taking a player you may not rank as high as another, depending on the circumstance for sure. Generally the better a player is, the more opportunities to win, but there are exceptions.

Personal bias plays a role too. You hate LeBron, have since I have seen you on this site. You are a Kobe guy. So it makes sense that you would take Bird. They are at least on the same playing field I guess, so bias is playing a role. Not calling you out, just saying it is common.. I ****ing HATE Harden, so anyone with similar pedigree, I will chose them haha

valade16
05-03-2017, 12:22 PM
I personally think you overrate D-Rob, just want to get that out there.

But yeah, the mystique of Bird/Magic, and the history, make people end up overrating them just a bit. I mean, we are seriously still having a conversation about whether LeBron has passed Bird at this point in another thread. Like, really? And Magic, if people want to talk about easy rides to the finals, check out his west competition over the years. You are right, where their stats don't kick out many of the top peaks we have seen among players. Magic's offensive rating was insane, his peak was indeed legendary, but there are better. Same goes with Bird.

Top 11-12 players ever? Yep, sure. Top 5? Hell to the no.

Well it depends on which advanced stats you use. He seems to favor PER and WS/48 which indeed have AD very high, but if you look at the other 2 of the big 4 (BPM and VORP) AD's year is far below Magic or Bird's best.

AD: 30.8 PER | .274 WS/48 | 7.1 BPM | 6.8 VORP* (extrapolated his 5.7 VORP for 68 games to 82 games played)

Magic: 26.6 PER | .270 WS/48 | 9.5 BPM | 8.5 VORP

Bird: 27.8 PER | .243 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 8.1 VORP

So is AD's advantage is PER (and Bird's WS/48), but both Magic and Bird smoke him in BPM and VORP (and that wasn't even Bird's best BPM and VORP year, where he put up 9.1/8.7).

I think Magic and Bird had a better pure statistical year than AD did, and then once you add contextual impact and playoffs/winning, their seasons were vastly superior.

Bartlee23
05-03-2017, 12:23 PM
Thank you for validating my point.... BTW I have LeBron in my top 10, Kobe I don't. Troll on..........

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 12:26 PM
Well it depends on which advanced stats you use. He seems to favor PER and WS/48 which indeed have AD very high, but if you look at the other 2 of the big 4 (BPM and VORP) AD's year is far below Magic or Bird's best.

AD: 30.8 PER | .274 WS/48 | 7.1 BPM | 6.8 VORP* (extrapolated his 5.7 VORP for 68 games to 82 games played)

Magic: 26.6 PER | .270 WS/48 | 9.5 BPM | 8.5 VORP

Bird: 27.8 PER | .243 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 8.1 VORP

So is AD's advantage is PER (and Bird's WS/48), but both Magic and Bird smoke him in BPM and VORP (and that wasn't even Bird's best BPM and VORP year, where he put up 9.1/8.7).

I think Magic and Bird had a better pure statistical year than AD did, and then once you add contextual impact and playoffs/winning, their seasons were vastly superior.

I wasn't addressing AD, sorry for the confusion. I was more so addressing Magic/Bird. it does depend on what stats you use, and you should use them all. I think Magic and Bird are like these mystical unicorns whose legends only get stronger with the passing years honestly. Incredible players, but there have been better, kind of easily actually..

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 12:26 PM
Thank you for validating my point.... BTW I have LeBron in my top 10, Kobe I don't. Troll on..........

what point did I validate?

Dude, you hate LeBron. Oh well, we all have players we can't stand..

valade16
05-03-2017, 12:38 PM
I wasn't addressing AD, sorry for the confusion. I was more so addressing Magic/Bird. it does depend on what stats you use, and you should use them all. I think Magic and Bird are like these mystical unicorns whose legends only get stronger with the passing years honestly. Incredible players, but there have been better, kind of easily actually..

Yeah I agree. I have them both Top 10 but they are not like 2 and 3 after MJ like many from that era do.

Bird is my co-favorite player ever (with Hakeem) and I think LeBron > Bird clearly.

PhillySportFan
05-03-2017, 12:46 PM
Anthony Davis? He's not even in his prime. Also I believe the question is best players in their prime, not the best statistical seasons of all time. Anthony Davis is good but he hasn't accomplished a dam thing yet, he doesn't deserve to be on any lists unless it's best young player or best big man currently.

Edit: would like to add I didn't read his post, just the title. I see he says in a single season. I would assume we are still including playoffs because regular season doesn't mean much.

WaDe03
05-03-2017, 12:46 PM
Wade is better than Jordan, please show me otherwise.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 01:33 PM
Yeah I agree. I have them both Top 10 but they are not like 2 and 3 after MJ like many from that era do.

Bird is my co-favorite player ever (with Hakeem) and I think LeBron > Bird clearly.

pretty much exactly me haha. Those are, without my homer Wolves player(s), my favorite 2 players, along with Michael Jordan. I am 41, so I literally grew up with Jordan. He was me and my best friends life from 1987-93'.

valade16
05-03-2017, 01:43 PM
pretty much exactly me haha. Those are, without my homer Wolves player(s), my favorite 2 players, along with Michael Jordan. I am 41, so I literally grew up with Jordan. He was me and my best friends life from 1987-93'.

I grew up on the tail end of the 90's in terms of basketball. I had an Olajuwon jersey in that striped Rocket's jersey rebrand. I had a Knicks Sprewell Jersey and I had a Garnett T-Wolves Jersey. Those were the jersey's I had outside the Blazers. I absolutely loved that NYK team that went to the Finals. To this day Ewing, Sprewell and Houston are some of my favorite players.

Good times.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 01:55 PM
I grew up on the tail end of the 90's in terms of basketball. I had an Olajuwon jersey in that striped Rocket's jersey rebrand. I had a Knicks Sprewell Jersey and I had a Garnett T-Wolves Jersey. Those were the jersey's I had outside the Blazers. I absolutely loved that NYK team that went to the Finals. To this day Ewing, Sprewell and Houston are some of my favorite players.

Good times.

I had an all star Bird jersey that I wore out one summer, wore it everyday at the Trent Tucker bball camp haha. I also had an Alex English jersey my Dad got me on a trip. That was random. Probably the only person I ever saw that had one, though I lived nowhere near Denver.

valade16
05-03-2017, 02:02 PM
I had an all star Bird jersey that I wore out one summer, wore it everyday at the Trent Tucker bball camp haha. I also had an Alex English jersey my Dad got me on a trip. That was random. Probably the only person I ever saw that had one, though I lived nowhere near Denver.

Trent Tucker bball camp lol. Nice! What was that like? I've never been to a pro-camp before. Yeah I don't recall ever seeing an English jersey before.

I was going to a Mariners game last year with a buddy and we saw these two dudes in front of us in line for a hot dog outside the stadium. The black dude was wearing the snow-peak Jazz Kirilenko jersey and the white dude was wearing a Lakers Kobe jersey. We went over to the condiments and they were looking around and finally the black dude asked the guy at the grill "do you have any mayonnaise?" and the white dude immediately says "and hot sauce"?

Needless to say, my buddy and I wondered if we'd accidentally entered a parallel universe lol.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 02:16 PM
Trent Tucker bball camp lol. Nice! What was that like? I've never been to a pro-camp before. Yeah I don't recall ever seeing an English jersey before.

I was going to a Mariners game last year with a buddy and we saw these two dudes in front of us in line for a hot dog outside the stadium. The black dude was wearing the snow-peak Jazz Kirilenko jersey and the white dude was wearing a Lakers Kobe jersey. We went over to the condiments and they were looking around and finally the black dude asked the guy at the grill "do you have any mayonnaise?" and the white dude immediately says "and hot sauce"?

Needless to say, my buddy and I wondered if we'd accidentally entered a parallel universe lol.

Tucker was a U of Minnesota guy, and has had ties to the MN community since. He had a camp at Carleton college for years, I ended up going 3 times. The 2nd year, Ewing visited, and I remember thinking I could easily shove my entire forearm up his nostrils they were so huge.

Weirdest thing like that I have ever seen was when I was like 23, I went to a Skynard concert (I know, they suck), and I saw a black dude wearing a Confederate Flag dress shirt, cowboy hat, and jeans so tight I can't see how he took a step.

thenaj17
05-03-2017, 03:13 PM
I never said anything about box scores. I mean, at their absolute best, who would you most want on your team relative to their era. Like if longevity didn't matter, and you could just have a whole career's worth of 2000 Shaq, you're taking him over anyone but Jordan and LeBron. If you got Russell at his absolute best, relative to the league he was in at the time, I think the distance between him and an average player is greater than anyone below him.



One of Duncan's biggest selling points is his longevity. You're telling me you'd rather have, say, 2003 Duncan than 2000 Shaq? Or '86 Bird? Or '13 LeBron? Seriously? If you really think THAT highly of Duncan's peak, I'd assume you'd have to push him over MJ on your overall list because of his far superior longevity.


Clearly nowhere near as good a player as Wilt especially if you're going by peak/stats but you have him above Wilt. You lose all credibility with that

Quinnsanity
05-03-2017, 04:28 PM
Clearly nowhere near as good a player as Wilt especially if you're going by peak/stats but you have him above Wilt. You lose all credibility with that

What does "nowhere near as good a player" even mean though?

Again, I never said anything about stats. I said peak. There's a difference, and I've already explained it in the very post you quoted. Was Wilt Chamberlain a more skilled basketball player than Russell? Probably, yea. But when you add in the personality and the style, you'd clearly rather have the best version of Russell than the best version of Wilt. That makes him better to me. Those intangibles matter, they make one player more conducive to winning than the other.


You again. Off as usual. Dude I am beginning to think you are Jay Cutler with your inability to grasp concepts fully.
What does AD, not hitting his peak yet, have to do with his peak year so far being better than most every other peak year by any other player.

This list is statistically backed. Doesn't mean its right or wrong, but these guys all have stats that are arguably top 10 ever. Magic and Bird have no such years. Matter of fact, most people voting for them, never saw them play live, lol, just highlights for these voters and a lack of statistical backing, but hey, yeah, I'm trolling and my stats check out. Nice.

I already explained how dumb using PER and WS as the basis of your argument is. Go back and read that. Maybe learn more about the stats you're using before you treat them as gospel.


I personally think you overrate D-Rob, just want to get that out there.

But yeah, the mystique of Bird/Magic, and the history, make people end up overrating them just a bit. I mean, we are seriously still having a conversation about whether LeBron has passed Bird at this point in another thread. Like, really? And Magic, if people want to talk about easy rides to the finals, check out his west competition over the years. You are right, where their stats don't kick out many of the top peaks we have seen among players. Magic's offensive rating was insane, his peak was indeed legendary, but there are better. Same goes with Bird.

Top 11-12 players ever? Yep, sure. Top 5? Hell to the no.

We really don't talk about this enough, but it's completely true.


thing is, I haven't read a single argument on why I shouldn't pick Jordan as the GOAT. None of the arguments against it hold water.

In sports, impact, and contributions to winning are all that matter. Jordan had more impact than any other player in history, we saw it with our eyes, and we can quantify it easily.

The 2011 Mavs series also put such a dent in LeBron's attempt to catch Jordan for me. It just isn't going to happen in all likelihood, unless LeBron does a lot of winning as the man over the next few years. But we never saw Michael fail when he had a capable roster around him. Never.

I'm fine with the idea of the 2011 Finals being a dent in LeBron's legacy, I just don't like it when people treat it as something that excludes him from any rank on these lists. It's bad. There's no denying that. But I think it matters that he clearly grew from that experience and became one of the best clutch players ever. I'm ultimately more interested in the player he became than the one he was on the road to getting there. But it's totally fair to include that in the conversation. I just don't think it should be something as simplistic as "well MJ never choked in the Finals and LeBron did so LeBron can't be ahead of him."

My feeling has always been that LeBron impacts games in more ways. I think his passing and rebounding are much greater weapons than they were for MJ, and even when you take era into account LeBron was a better three-point shooter relative to the league he was in. I think his overall defense was more impactful than MJ's just because he has more size and covers more ground, but that's obviously not a knock on MJ's defense. I just prefer the more versatile player.

And as a side note, I don't think anybody really appreciates the luck Jordan had in the rosters that were built around him. Jerry Krause discovering Scottie Pippen at Central Arkansas is kind of a once-in-a-lifetime find. Horace Grant was not a popular pick. A player of Dennis Rodman's caliber should not have been on the trade market for nothing. And yes, MJ played an important in the development and behavior of all of those guys, but man, those are breaks most teams don't get. Also worth noting is how easily all of that could have been derailed if the Bulls had simply listened to MJ: he CONSTANTLY told them to trade for a decaying Walter Davis, wanted them to draft Johnny Dawkins, basically wanted to remake the team as an amalgam of the North Carolina college programs early in his career. Krause basically told him to **** off, and that led to great teams being built around him. Krause got a ton of crap for saying this at the time, but it's really true. Organizations win championships. LeBron, to a certain extent, took organizations out of the equation by practically building his own teams. I'm not saying this is a point in his favor. You could argue we should blame him for some bad moves because of that. But I really think in any MJ discussion we have to mention that Jordan was not only a great player himself, but he had tremendous coaching and organizational infrastructure around him. I mean, his team won 55 games the year after he retired. That says a lot to me.

mngopher35
05-03-2017, 04:40 PM
1. MJ
2. Lebron
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. KAJ

I feel comfortable with these 5 as my top guys. Then we get a little tougher with Bird/Magic/Duncan/Hakeem all being very close to me. Russell/Kobe normally make top 10 lists but I am not sure they fit the peak category. Moses/Oscar/West/Drob and my homer choice of KG coming up next.

I see KOB's post above now and also should maybe consider Curry although that one is trickier (he's basically at his peak right? last year we got a glimpse but mostly RS play up to this point). Honestly probably shouldn't have posted and just +1'd his list lol. I think I like it.

valade16
05-03-2017, 04:41 PM
If LeBron and the Cavs beat this Warriors team at full strength not only will it eliminate the 2011 blemish on his resume, it would force me to consider LeBron 1B to Jordan's 1A.

Hawkeye15
05-03-2017, 05:32 PM
What does "nowhere near as good a player" even mean though?

Again, I never said anything about stats. I said peak. There's a difference, and I've already explained it in the very post you quoted. Was Wilt Chamberlain a more skilled basketball player than Russell? Probably, yea. But when you add in the personality and the style, you'd clearly rather have the best version of Russell than the best version of Wilt. That makes him better to me. Those intangibles matter, they make one player more conducive to winning than the other.



I already explained how dumb using PER and WS as the basis of your argument is. Go back and read that. Maybe learn more about the stats you're using before you treat them as gospel.



We really don't talk about this enough, but it's completely true.



I'm fine with the idea of the 2011 Finals being a dent in LeBron's legacy, I just don't like it when people treat it as something that excludes him from any rank on these lists. It's bad. There's no denying that. But I think it matters that he clearly grew from that experience and became one of the best clutch players ever. I'm ultimately more interested in the player he became than the one he was on the road to getting there. But it's totally fair to include that in the conversation. I just don't think it should be something as simplistic as "well MJ never choked in the Finals and LeBron did so LeBron can't be ahead of him."
My feeling has always been that LeBron impacts games in more ways. I think his passing and rebounding are much greater weapons than they were for MJ, and even when you take era into account LeBron was a better three-point shooter relative to the league he was in. I think his overall defense was more impactful than MJ's just because he has more size and covers more ground, but that's obviously not a knock on MJ's defense. I just prefer the more versatile player.

And as a side note, I don't think anybody really appreciates the luck Jordan had in the rosters that were built around him. Jerry Krause discovering Scottie Pippen at Central Arkansas is kind of a once-in-a-lifetime find. Horace Grant was not a popular pick. A player of Dennis Rodman's caliber should not have been on the trade market for nothing. And yes, MJ played an important in the development and behavior of all of those guys, but man, those are breaks most teams don't get. Also worth noting is how easily all of that could have been derailed if the Bulls had simply listened to MJ: he CONSTANTLY told them to trade for a decaying Walter Davis, wanted them to draft Johnny Dawkins, basically wanted to remake the team as an amalgam of the North Carolina college programs early in his career. Krause basically told him to **** off, and that led to great teams being built around him. Krause got a ton of crap for saying this at the time, but it's really true. Organizations win championships. LeBron, to a certain extent, took organizations out of the equation by practically building his own teams. I'm not saying this is a point in his favor. You could argue we should blame him for some bad moves because of that. But I really think in any MJ discussion we have to mention that Jordan was not only a great player himself, but he had tremendous coaching and organizational infrastructure around him. I mean, his team won 55 games the year after he retired. That says a lot to me.

MJ never underperformed once he hit his stride though, to the degree where we went, "wtf was that?". It's not just the loss man. It's that peak LeBron James looked so pedestrian, and easily contained, it just made me scratch my head. Tired, hurt, whatever. He looked bad. Real bad for him. That matters to me.

Every all timer who won a lot had boatloads of luck. No need to spell that out. The fact of the matter is, Jordan was the best player I have ever seen, he whipped everyone in front of him, put fear into opponents, his numbers back it up, and he succeeded to a greater degree than any other player in history (unless we go back to Russell days).

I understand LeBron might influence the game in more ways, but Jordan impacted it more in the scoreboard. You knew what was coming when Jordan stepped on the court. 30/7/6, on elite efficiency, elite defense, and he took your soul with him.

KnicksorBust
05-03-2017, 08:47 PM
1. MJ
2. Lebron
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. KAJ

I feel comfortable with these 5 as my top guys. Then we get a little tougher with Bird/Magic/Duncan/Hakeem all being very close to me. Russell/Kobe normally make top 10 lists but I am not sure they fit the peak category. Moses/Oscar/West/Drob and my homer choice of KG coming up next.

I see KOB's post above now and also should maybe consider Curry although that one is trickier (he's basically at his peak right? last year we got a glimpse but mostly RS play up to this point). Honestly probably shouldn't have posted and just +1'd his list lol. I think I like it.

:)

GREATNESS ONE
05-03-2017, 09:04 PM
Best Peak for 1 season, that's my list. Absolute best peak in a season. Most dominant, most unstoppable for one Championship run.

1. Shaq
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. Wilt
5. Curry
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Kareem
9. Magic
10. Hakeem

FlashBolt
05-03-2017, 09:30 PM
Curry doesn't belong on the list just because his defensive impact is missing. Difficult to put a guy who is 100% offense or 100% defense. The main guys were elite at both in the same season. Even though Shaq wasn't exactly the best defender, he was still up there.

GREATNESS ONE
05-03-2017, 11:56 PM
Maybe it was just the statistically insane year he had is still in recent memory. It will probably change when the dust settles.

IKnowHoops
05-04-2017, 03:40 AM
I had an all star Bird jersey that I wore out one summer, wore it everyday at the Trent Tucker bball camp haha. I also had an Alex English jersey my Dad got me on a trip. That was random. Probably the only person I ever saw that had one, though I lived nowhere near Denver.

Took 2nd in the 3 on 3 tourney there in 95

IKnowHoops
05-04-2017, 03:47 AM
To be fair, not everybody follows PER and WS/48 as gospel as much as you do though. He wasn't even All-NBA 1st Team that season dude.

To be fair...you use whatever advanced stats you want. You can make no argument using them that would put Drob outside of the top 10 Peak.

Hawkeye15
05-04-2017, 09:27 AM
Took 2nd in the 3 on 3 tourney there in 95

I was there in the summers of 91-94'. I don't remember what success or failure I had, outside I won the vertical contest after my junior year haha. I was so proud...

ManRam
05-04-2017, 01:11 PM
Best Peak for 1 season, that's my list. Absolute best peak in a season. Most dominant, most unstoppable for one Championship run.

1. Shaq
2. MJ
3. Lebron
4. Wilt
5. Curry
6. Duncan
7. Kobe
8. Kareem
9. Magic
10. Hakeem

Care to attach a year to any of these? Or is this some hypothetical?

Because I think I could name a couple MJ and LeBron seasons better than Shaq's best.

IKnowHoops
05-04-2017, 01:26 PM
Curry doesn't belong on the list just because his defensive impact is missing. Difficult to put a guy who is 100% offense or 100% defense. The main guys were elite at both in the same season. Even though Shaq wasn't exactly the best defender, he was still up there.

Shaq's defense is so underrated on this board. He locked down the paint the first 8 years of his career. From day 1.

Pierzynski4Prez
05-04-2017, 02:43 PM
Shaq's defense is so underrated on this board. He locked down the paint the first 8 years of his career. From day 1.

If I remember it correctly, his defense was essentially the reason the league had to add the defensive 3 seconds rule.

flea
05-04-2017, 08:43 PM
Kidd made it back for a reason? Yea, the reason was the rest of the East sucked. The Nets won 101 games in those two years. They were the No. 1 seed with 52 wins and the No. 2 seed with 49 (behind the No. 1 seeded Pistons with 50). Screw comparing the Nets to teams in other seasons, just look to the other conference. The Lakers had the same record as the No. 1 seeded Pistons but they were in the West so they were the No. 5 seed. The Pistons had the same SRS as the No. 6 seed Blazers. Stop it. The East was MISERABLE those Nets years.

The East was better then than it has been since Lebron left Cleveland the first time. The Nets beat a few good teams in those runs, and certainly better teams than who Lebron's Heat beat in 2013. Probably the best team prime Paul Pierce had with Antoine Walker (Nets beat them twice in their back to back run). No they weren't a great team but they did win 49 games one year - the same number of games that the Pacers that pushed the Heat to 7 won in 2013. The Pistons sans Rasheed Wallace was still a very good team. Then there was a veteran Bucks team with Payton/Cassell that was better than their record, young proto-Westbrook Baron Davis team, and a Pacers team with young Artest and old but still very good Reggie Miller.

Did most of those teams see better days? Obviously, and nobody would ever dream of saying the East was great then. But it wasn't as bad as it has been during Lebron's reign and yet for some reason people act like the Nets accomplished nothing (in spite of being the best D in the league in 2003) while Lebron has accomplished everything by beating Monta Ellis/Brandon Jennings, Joakim Noah/Carlos Boozer and Nate Robinson, and that lumbering Pacers squad with a bottom 10 offense.

Revisionist history. Any team that makes back to back Finals in the NBA is a very good team. The Nets just get discredited because of their defensive style and because of the overall defensive style of the early 00s. Plus everyone was busy buying AI, Vinsanity, and T-Mac jerseys then while Kidd & Co. were busy winning.


And umm... LeBron beat the 73-win Warriors. That's far more impressive than what '03 Duncan did. The Warriors won 140 games in '15 and '16, by the way.

No it isn't. First of all the Cavs had an immensely talented roster, with one of the 3 or 4 best scorers in the NBA playing PG. Second, the Warriors built their regular season record mainly on their depth, which is essentially pointless in contested playoff series where your 7-deep is what wins or loses you games. And third, only the biggest Warrior fanboys would take last year's Warriors over the 3peat Lakers. Maybe this year's Warriors but they've still got a long way to go.


This isn't about denigrating Duncan. I'm about as high on him as anyone rational would be. Best player of his era (if you consider LeBron to be the next era, which is another discussion), certainly deserves to be higher on all time lists than Kobe and Shaq imo and is somewhere in the back half of the top 10. But I'm sorry, as impressive as it is that he won a title with that supporting cast in general, it's not some awe-inspiring feat when you consider the competition.

Yeah, way better competition than Lebron has faced on the whole. Sounds like a double standard at work here - but then that was the whole point of denigrating what Duncan did in 2003 wasn't it? To prop up Queen James's exploits against Joakim Noah, ancient Paul Pierce, and Monta Ellis. There used to be better competition in the East, but Lebron realized he couldn't win in a competitive environment so he teamed up with his competition. So heroic.

FlashBolt
05-04-2017, 08:48 PM
Shaq's defense is so underrated on this board. He locked down the paint the first 8 years of his career. From day 1.

He was terrible in team defense and usually quit on the play because he didn't fight through picks. Good man defender but he was always too lazy to help.

Mr.B
05-05-2017, 11:10 AM
1. MJ
2. Duncan
3. Bird
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Magic
8. Lebron
9. Kobe
10. Moses

No Wilt?

Mr.B
05-05-2017, 11:14 AM
1. MJ
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. Magic
5. Kareem
6. Labron
7. Kobe
8. Hakeem
9. Bird
10. Wilt

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 11:25 AM
I laugh when I see peak Kobe over peak Wade. Are these Lakers fans?

ewing
05-05-2017, 11:53 AM
I laugh when I see peak Kobe over peak Wade. Are these Lakers fans?

Basketball fans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 11:55 AM
Basketball fans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not very educated ones then I suppose.

Hawkeye15
05-05-2017, 11:56 AM
Basketball fans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wade has a great case for a better peak than Kobe. He gets killed by longevity in all time ranking versus Kobe, but at their absolute best, I would take Wade.

valade16
05-05-2017, 12:03 PM
Wade has a great case for a better peak than Kobe. He gets killed by longevity in all time ranking versus Kobe, but at their absolute best, I would take Wade.

As would I.

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 12:26 PM
Wade has a great case for a better peak than Kobe. He gets killed by longevity in all time ranking versus Kobe, but at their absolute best, I would take Wade.

Yea I agree, wish Wade would have had that longevity.

ewing
05-05-2017, 02:14 PM
Wade has a great case for a better peak than Kobe. He gets killed by longevity in all time ranking versus Kobe, but at their absolute best, I would take Wade.

I know your a big Kobe fan so.... anyway I'd take Kobe. He was just a more versatile offensive weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bostonjorge
05-05-2017, 02:24 PM
Kobe has had amazing seasons. Like when he averaged 35 points a game for the season. How many before or after averaged 35+ a game? He's had some amazing MVP seasons where the only real knock was his final seeding those years. With Kobe tho we know winning wasn't a issue as he's a top 5 winner.

No way wade gets you a better chance to win. Wade had lebron and only managed to ride him to 2 rings.

Hawkeye15
05-05-2017, 02:24 PM
I know your a big Kobe fan so.... anyway I'd take Kobe. He was just a more versatile offensive weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean, versatile and effective are two different things though. Kobe got away from rim attack way too early in his prime, instead falling in love with the midrange game (ala copying Jordan's later years). Otherwise I think he would have been better.

mngopher35
05-05-2017, 02:27 PM
Kobe has had amazing seasons. Like when he averaged 35 points a game for the season. How many before or after averaged 35+ a game? He's had some amazing MVP seasons where the only real knock was his final seeding those years. With Kobe tho we know winning wasn't a issue as he's a top 5 winner.

No way wade gets you a better chance to win. Wade had lebron and only managed to ride him to 2 rings.

Didn't have Kobe have Shaq for twice as long and "only managed to ride him to 3 rings" in that time?

I think it was pretty close overall between these two but that seems like a funny thing to point out.

Hawkeye15
05-05-2017, 02:33 PM
Kobe has had amazing seasons. Like when he averaged 35 points a game for the season. How many before or after averaged 35+ a game? He's had some amazing MVP seasons where the only real knock was his final seeding those years. With Kobe tho we know winning wasn't a issue as he's a top 5 winner.

No way wade gets you a better chance to win. Wade had lebron and only managed to ride him to 2 rings.

Wade had better numbers than Kobe during their peaks (more effective, more dominant). He was a better defender as they both assumed offensive #1 roles.

Wade's one knock, when it comes to ranking the 2 all time, was his longevity. By 2012, Wade was no longer an elite player with any consistency at all, and in fact saw bouts of pretty average play when his body started acting up on him. Kobe's longevity is the biggest reason he is in the top 10-11 players, instead of top 30.

as for your last sentence, you have it backwards. Wade absolutely road LeBron for his last 2 titles.

Bostonjorge
05-05-2017, 02:39 PM
I mean, versatile and effective are two different things though. Kobe got away from rim attack way too early in his prime, instead falling in love with the midrange game (ala copying Jordan's later years). Otherwise I think he would have been better.

The year Kobe was going threw his court thing was Kobe's athletic peak. 116 dunks and posterized many big great big men that season. The games after court dates where legendary. His playoff stats led the team in points and assists. It just ended bad with Detroit. I take that Kobe attacking the rim over any wade. Kobe also shot 38% from the 3. Wade shot never came close to Kobe. Only Jordan mid range can rival Kobe's.

Hawkeye15
05-05-2017, 02:45 PM
The year Kobe was going threw his court thing was Kobe's athletic peak. 116 dunks and posterized many big great big men that season. The games after court dates where legendary. His playoff stats led the team in points and assists. It just ended bad with Detroit. I take that Kobe attacking the rim over any wade. Kobe also shot 38% from the 3. Wade shot never came close to Kobe. Only Jordan mid range can rival Kobe's.

and yet Wade was more effective, had better numbers, was the better defender, better at the rim, and shot less of the midrange, ie, the worst shot in the game to take. That being said, it was a slightly different time, midrange was still a thing back in the mid-2000's, even though it was becoming less and less. It's a big reason Kobe just fails next to all timers in efficiency. He was way too reliant on the most useless shot attempt in the half court setting there is. Even if he was good at it..

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 04:30 PM
LeBron was the best player but Wade was huge in their rings.

That's a bad argument anyways, only 2 rings? That also wasn't his peak so it doesn't matter.

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 04:30 PM
I know your a big Kobe fan so.... anyway I'd take Kobe. He was just a more versatile offensive weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take the better all around player who is much more efficient.

mngopher35
05-05-2017, 04:33 PM
I mean was either of them actually at their peak in those situations anyways? I don't think so, maybe by the end Kobe was just hitting his and for Wade at the beginning was leaving his? I dunno, majority of it probably came when they each had lesser casts tbh.

I think they are probably around the same level just bring different things.

mngopher35
05-05-2017, 04:37 PM
I'll take the better all around player who is much more efficient.

mmm I think they were somewhat close efficiency wise, no?

Redrum187
05-05-2017, 04:45 PM
I laugh when I see peak Kobe over peak Wade. Are these Lakers fans?

I hate Wade, but I'd even put peak Wade over peak Kobe. But then again... I'd take 2016-2017 Kawhi Leonard over any year Wade or Kobe put up.

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 04:58 PM
I hate Wade, but I'd even put peak Wade over peak Kobe. But then again... I'd take 2016-2017 Kawhi Leonard over any year Wade or Kobe put up.

You should stop thinking like that

WaDe03
05-05-2017, 05:00 PM
mmm I think they were somewhat close efficiency wise, no?

Last I checked it wasn't but Wade has an inefficient year this year so it's probably closer. I know he's always shot much better from the field and had a higher PER than Kobe.

Hawkeye15
05-05-2017, 05:00 PM
I hate Wade, but I'd even put peak Wade over peak Kobe. But then again... I'd take 2016-2017 Kawhi Leonard over any year Wade or Kobe put up.

I probably would too

valade16
05-05-2017, 05:23 PM
I hate Wade, but I'd even put peak Wade over peak Kobe. But then again... I'd take 2016-2017 Kawhi Leonard over any year Wade or Kobe put up.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Kawhi+Leonard&player_id1_select=Kawhi+Leonard&y1=2017&player_id1=leonaka01&player_id2_hint=Dwyane+Wade&player_id2_select=Dwyane+Wade&y2=2009&player_id2=wadedw01

The numbers are close but seemingly favor Wade. Of course defense is Kawhi and if you include playoffs and Kawhi can manage to keep up this otherworldly play, it's closer.

mngopher35
05-05-2017, 05:40 PM
Last I checked it wasn't but Wade has an inefficient year this year so it's probably closer. I know he's always shot much better from the field and had a higher PER than Kobe.

I mean at their peak more so than career so it shouldn't factor in (just looked and they are tied in ortg RS, Kobe leads for playoffs 110 to 108 but that isn't only peak etc). It seems like at their peak they were similar in offensive efficiency/ortg by the numbers it seems, both around 115 rating in RS and a couple playoff years.

To me Wade is the better attacker/driver and playmaker off of that while Kobe is the better shooter with a more fundamental scoring ability/technique driven. Impact wise they are very close and I also think defensively you can make a similar argument of being different but not to far off in impact (Wade better team defender, Kobe better 1v1).

I am not arguing that Wade is worse as a player or anything I just don't think he was that much more efficient overall on offense.